Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

Nursing Online Course Evaluation Tool – Rubric

1. Goals and Objectives clearly stated


• All objectives are clearly stated, measurable and specific.

1. Instructor provides broad, general goals for the course, but no course or module level
objectives as distinct from these.

3. Instructor provides several course and/or module level objectives that are distinct from
the general goals for the course, but the objectives as written typically fail to be properly
formed. Objectives should specify an observable behavior, a condition under which that
behavior occurs, and a criterion indicating what constitutes successful performance of
that behavior.
• Example of a poorly formed objective: Students will understand the influence of
physiological age and health status on dosage requirements.
• Example of a well-formed objective: Using the principles of pharmacokinetics,
students will be able to competently adjust dosage requirements based upon
variability in physiological age and health status.

5. Instructor provides several course and/or module level objectives that are distinct from
the general goals for the course, and the objectives as written are all well-formed.

2. Goals and objectives appropriate to level of the course


• Goals and objectives are appropriate to the expected level of knowledge, skill
and experience of learners.

1. Given the place of the course in the curriculum and the stated prerequisites (or as
judged by the course number), both the goals and objectives demand far too much or too
little of the students (e.g., they demand merely factual recall in a high-level course that
should demand that students synthesize and apply knowledge)

3. Given the place of the course in the curriculum and the stated prerequisites (or as
judged by the course number), the goals and objectives are slightly mismatched with
respect to the expected level of knowledge, skill and experience of learners.

5. Given the place of the course in the curriculum and the stated prerequisites (or as
judged by the course number), the goals and objectives are well-suited to the expected
level of knowledge, skill and experience of learners.

3. Pre-requisite and/or prior knowledge required for course outlined.


• Instructor clearly outlines pre-requisite knowledge and skills.

-1-
1. The instructor provides no explicit pre-requisites with respect to student knowledge or
skills.

3. The instructor provides at least some explicitly stated pre-requisites, but may do so in
vague or overly general terms.

5. The instructor clearly indicates specific knowledge and skills students are expected to
possess coming into this particular course.

4. Learning activities and teaching strategies match the course objectives.


• Comment on the degree to which learning activities and teaching strategies contribute
to the achievement of the course objectives.

1. In the reviewer’s judgment, learning activities and teaching strategies are badly
matched to the course objectives (e.g., the course objectives include synthesis and
application of principles in novel circumstances, but the primary activity in the course is
lecture/information delivery and knowledge recall).

3. In the reviewer’s judgment, learning activities and teaching strategies are adequately
matched to some of the course objectives, but there are some significant mismatches.

5. In the reviewer’s judgment, learning activities and teaching strategies are ideally suited
to helping the students achieve all of the course objectives.

• The connection between the course objectives and learning activities is apparent to
students.

1. No explicit or implicit connection is revealed between the course objectives and the
activities and strategies utilized in the course.

3. An implicit connection is made by, for instance, regularly restating the objectives in
assignments or at the beginning of modules. Or, connections are made explicitly but only
occasionally throughout the course.

5. An explicit connection is made regularly throughout the course relating course


objectives to learning activities and teaching strategies.

5. Faculty availability to address student needs.


• Instructor establishes regular meeting and/or response times and methods to address
student needs.

1. No explicit guidance is provided to students regarding how to contact instructor, what


kind of response time students can expect when making requests of instructor, nor where
to turn if they need assistance in the course.

3. Instructor provides limited guidance as to how to contact instructor, what kind of

-2-
response time students can expect when making requests of instructor, and where to turn
if they need assistance in the course.

5. Instructor provides clear guidance as to how to contact instructor, what kind of


response time students can expect when making requests of instructor, and where to turn
for various predictable needs in the course (e.g., technical problems, illness).

• Instructor or TAs are available to assist students with problems encountered during
the course.

1. Instructor and/or TA routinely fails to respond within the stated response time (or,
absent explicit policies, the reviewer’s judgment of reasonable time), and/or students
frequently have to follow up to get assistance.

3. Instructor and/or TA usually respond adequately and within the stated response time
(or, absent explicit policies, the reviewer’s judgment of reasonable time), but there are at
least a few occasions where they fail to do so.

5. Instructor and/or TA always respond adequately and within the stated response time
(or, absent explicit policies, the reviewer’s judgment of reasonable time).

6. Technical requirements are specified with regard to both skill and equipment.
• Technology requirements needed to participate in the course are clearly specified
with regard to both skill and equipment.

1. Instructor provides neither standard, general information about technical requirements


(e.g., linking to a general technical support page), nor information about this course in
particular (e.g., that students will be expected to create PowerPoint presentations).

3. Instructor provides standard, general information about technical requirements, but


provides little or no information about this course in particular.

5. Instructor provides both standard, general information about technical requirements,


and substantial information about this course in.

7. Realistic time commitment related to credit load


• Instructor communicates the expected time commitment which accurately reflects the
level of effort for the credit awarded.

1. Instructor provides neither standard, general information about time commitment (e.g.,
U of M boilerplate about appropriate time per credit hour ratio), nor information about
this course in particular (e.g., how many times the instructor expects students to log in to
the course website per week and how long students can expect this to take).

3. Instructor provides standard, general information about time commitment (e.g., U of M


boilerplate about appropriate time per credit hour ratio), but provides little or no
information about this course in particular (e.g., how many times the instructor expects

-3-
students to log in to the course website per week and how long students can expect this to
take).

5. Instructor provides both standard, general information about time commitment (e.g., U
of M boilerplate about appropriate time per credit hour ratio), and substantial information
about this course in particular (e.g., how many times the instructor expects students to log
in to the course website per week and how long students can expect this to take).

8. Learning activities are clearly described.


• Instructor provides a framework for completing assignments (student discussion,
participation, and projects) including expectations for satisfactory completion.

1. The instructor provides very few or no instructions for the successful completion of
course assignments, and/or the instructions are of such poor quality or so general and
vague as to be of little use to students.

3. The instructor provides at least some instructions for the successful completion of
course assignments, but the instructions are uneven in quality, at least sometimes overly
general or vague, and/or do not pertain to all assignments.

5. The instructor provides high-quality, specific instructions for the successful


completion of all course assignments, such as detailed rubrics for written assignments,
samples of high and low quality work, guidelines for working in student groups, study
guides for tests and quizzes, instructions for participating in online discussions (quality
and quantity of contributions expected), etc.

9. Learning activities applicable to the course are sufficiently supported.


• Instructor directs students to resources necessary to complete learning activities (e.g.
library support, electronic journals, instructions for preparing slide presentations,
etc.)

1. Instructor provides no or very few general resources relevant to course content and no
or very few resources attached to particular modules/assignments. Resources, where they
exist, are simply lists of links, book/article titles, etc., so that there is no way for students
to know what the resources are likely to contain.

3. Instructor provides some general resources relevant to course content but no or very
few resources attached to particular modules/assignments. Resources are usually simple
lists of links, book/article titles, etc., without annotations or descriptions.

5. Instructor provides both general resources relevant to course content and resources
attached to particular modules/assignments. Resources are usually described in some way
(such as through annotations) so that students know what the resource is likely to contain.

10. Course content is presented to appeal to a variety of learning styles.


• Instructor uses varied activities such as case studies, virtual lab,

-4-
interactive simulation, cooperative projects, self-tests.

1. The course relies almost completely on the straightforward presentation of


information. Students very rarely or never engage in activities like the ones listed above
to work actively with the course material (by critically analyzing it, applying it in novel
contexts, etc.)

3. The course relies on the straightforward presentation of information, but students


sometimes engage in activities like the ones listed above to work actively with the course
material (by critically analyzing it, applying it in novel contexts, etc.)

5. The course presents information to students, but students frequently engage in


activities like the ones listed above to work actively with the course material (by critically
analyzing it, applying it in novel contexts, etc.)

• Instructor uses varied media such as text, images, audio, video,


animation.

1. The course relies almost completely on textual material and very rarely or never uses
visual, kinesthetic and/or auditory media to engage students and enhance their learning.

3. The course relies on textual material but sometimes uses visual, kinesthetic and/or
auditory media to engage students and enhance their learning.

5. The course uses textual material but frequently also uses visual, kinesthetic and/or
auditory media to engage students and enhance their learning.

11. Course layout/design facilitate student learning


• Medium is simple and transparent enough so students can focus on content (e.g.
navigational structure is simple to learn).

1. It is often difficult to navigate through the course website and to locate particular tools
or materials. The site manifests none or few of the following qualities:

• the site provides more than one way of accessing site components;
• the site minimizes clicking as much as possible;
• web pages are visually and functionally consistent;
• site components are grouped in logical and intuitive ways;
• site components are interlinked where possible (e.g., direct links from content
pages or calendar to discussion area);
• site is aesthetically pleasing, but its design does not interfere with functionality.

3. It is sometimes easy but also sometimes difficult to navigate through the course
website and to locate particular tools or materials. The site manifests some but not all of
the qualities listed above.

5. It is very easy to navigate through the course website and to locate particular tools or
materials. The site manifests most or all of the qualities listed above.

-5-
12. Flexibility for student input to shape the course as appropriate
Instructor provides opportunities for student input to shape the course as appropriate (e.g.
initiate dialogue, provide feedback via formative evaluation, determine discussion topics,
input in shaping assignments).

1. Instructor determines focus of course and learning activities. There are no options for
student input, formative evaluation, or student led discussions.

3. Instructor may have an occasional request for student input regarding course content or
course direction, but pre-determines most course activities.

5. Instructor provides multiple opportunities for student input regarding course direction,
mid-course evaluation, or opportunity for student input into discussion or helping shape
other course activities.

13. Opportunity for reflection on individual student learning


Instructor encourages students to reflect on the learning process (e.g. engage in self-
evaluation regarding objectives, develop problem solving strategies, make connections
between classroom and real-world experiences.)

1. Instructor does not provide any opportunities for students to reflect on course learning,
relate course learning to a broader meaningful context, or evaluate their own learning in
the course.

3. Instructor provides a few opportunities for students to reflect on course learning, relate
course learning to a broader meaningful context, or evaluate their own learning in the
course.

5. Instructor provides multiple opportunities for students to reflect on course learning,


relate course learning to a broader meaningful context, or evaluate their own learning in
the course. Examples are learning activities that require students to incorporate their real
world experiences, engage in self evaluation, or integrate awareness of learning
experiences during a course.

14. Course content organized from simple to complex


Content and learning activities organized from simple to complex to foster integration
with prior knowledge and learning; tasks start off small (necessitating a low level of
content knowledge) and are then integrated meaningfully into a larger goal.

1. No building from prior knowledge and/or basic content and activities to more complex
content and learning activities is evident.

3. Some building on previous content and activities and progression to more complex
learning outcomes is evident.

5. Course explicitly builds from prior knowledge and/or basic content to higher level

-6-
analysis and synthesis of course content and learning activities as course proceeds.

15. Faculty and student interaction is timely and appropriate.


Instructor facilitates interaction (e.g. sets welcoming and respectful tone, sharpens
discussion focus, incorporates new ideas, deepens dialogue, and develops problem-
solving situations).

1. No or minimal interaction (beyond initial course set up) between faculty and students
is evident in review of course activities, discussions and email or other interactive tools.

3. Some evidence of interaction is seen between students and faculty although it may
appear delayed in timing or limited in scope in terms of facilitating open dialogue and
depth of discussions.

5. Faculty and student interaction is evident regularly and the discussion or other
activities are enriched and completed in more depth following input by the faculty
member.

16. Student to student interaction built into learning activities as appropriate


Instructor establishes defined expectations for communication, collaboration, and
accountability among students.

1. Few instructions are evident providing specific directions to students about interacting
with others through the course.

3. Some guidance is provided for students regarding student to student interaction but
they are brief and require interpretation on the part of the students.

5. Detailed and specific instructions for student to student communication are provided
including details about who communicates when and in what fashion including expected
format and length, for example, of discussion postings and other group assignments.

©2005 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. The University of Minnesota is an equal
opportunity educator and employer. Printed on paper containing at least 10% post-consumer waste. Produced
by the Digital Media Center (DMC), Office of Information Technology. This publication/material can be

-7-
made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities. Contact the DMC
Communications/Marketing Coordinator at (612) 625-5055 or dmc@umn.edu.

-8-